Gowdy On Special Counsel: ‘Finish It The Hell Up’

[Fantasywriter]

That article is from last summer.  Before the election, Politico ran a piece about how influential she was in the Trump Organization.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-2016-213248

The article you posted discussed how her policy influence had waned or had become non-existent in 2017.  However, this past March, Trump spoke about how hard she was working on the $1T infrastructure plan during the Ritchfield, OH speech.  Just a couple weeks ago, she supposedly helped change his mind on the EO for families of illegals.  I guess she's back.

I'm at a loss to discern how an article from 2015 reflects on Ivanka's influence in the White House. Obama was POTUS in 2015.

It's impossible to know what specific work Ivanka is doing on infrastructure.  I'd need more info before being convinced that she's trying to interject liberalism into an infrastructure bill. Even if that's her goal, I wouldn't bet she'd succeed. Trump dances with the ones who brought him, and that's not liberals.

[Fantasywriter]

   The Hill is primarily my Go To for posting articles here because it is much easier to copy/paste than most.  I try and use my discretion...


 Welcome to TBR.

Agree! Discretion is the key. I even have to be careful with one of my favorite conservative sites, Truthfeed.  It's generally a feel-good romp of pro-conservative blurbs, but the site owner tends to oversell. So whether left-leaning or otherwise,  discretion is always essential. [Speaking of Truthfeed, I once cited it on TOS and got clobbered with the usual closet leftist troll smear. It was only in retrospect that I realized the smearee had likely confused the site with Buzzfeed.]

Thanks again for the welcome. TBR is great!

[edpc]

I'm at a loss to discern how an article from 2015 reflects on Ivanka's influence in the White House. Obama was POTUS in 2015.

Because, if you read the article, he specifically mentioned her as important, once he entered the political arena.  That's relevant, whether you want to admit it or not.

She was the first person Trump mentioned by name when Sean Hannity asked in August, “Is there anyone close to you that you count on most?” and the member of his inner circle whom he consulted during the Megyn Kelly imbroglio. And when Trump announced his candidacy in June, it was Ivanka who introduced her father, while his wife, the former Melania Knauss—a less public person save for her sometimes racy work as a fashion model—stood in the background.

Some of you are going to be in for a rude shock if/when he becomes a second term lame duck.  That's when the NY liberal emerges, just like the Northeastern RINO did with Bush 43.

[Fantasywriter]

Because, if you read the article, he specifically mentioned her as important, once he entered the political arena.  That's relevant, whether you want to admit it or not.

She was the first person Trump mentioned by name when Sean Hannity asked in August, “Is there anyone close to you that you count on most?” and the member of his inner circle whom he consulted during the Megyn Kelly imbroglio. And when Trump announced his candidacy in June, it was Ivanka who introduced her father, while his wife, the former Melania Knauss—a less public person save for her sometimes racy work as a fashion model—stood in the background.

Some of you are going to be in for a rude shock if/when he becomes a second term lame duck.  That's when the NY liberal emerges, just like the Northeastern RINO did with Bush 43.

The first part of your post represents the 'nothing that puts Trump in a bad light can ever change,' mindset. I heard this a lot during the primaries.  For example,  Trump had once said something positive about Canadian single payer, which could ONLY mean he would impose single payer on the US if he became POTUS.

Then there's this insight:


No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy


The idea that nothing Trump said pre-POTUS can be altered is not realistic. From a practical POV things change. Trump alters his plans and actions accordingly. That's how he won and that's how he has since not only survived but strengthened and expanded his base.  He didn't run to be a typical politician who reneges on promises as soon as he wins office. He won to MAGA and that is what guides his decisions.


Now if you want to lose all credibility, just go on fortune-telling the future with your wholly subjective crystal ball.  That loses with me two ways. First, countless NTs told me Trump's inner liberal would come out after he won. Fail!! Trump has been exactly what I voted for, so I am in no mood to listen to the doom and gloomers take a mulligan.

Second,  the wholly-detached-from-reality Qers relentlessly lecture the (haha) non-red pilled rubes re what is "about to happen." They've been doing this since at least December and they've been wrong 99.9% of the time.  So I have really had it with the, 'I'm smarter than you bc I know what's going to happen and you don't,' crew. They wore out their welcome in January.
 
Sincere question.  What have you predicted about Trump that turned out to be true? Can you provide documentation? Tia.

[edpc]

The first part of your post represents the 'nothing that puts Trump in a bad light can ever change,' mindset. I heard this a lot during the primaries.  For example,  Trump had once said something positive about Canadian single payer, which could ONLY mean he would impose single payer on the US if he became POTUS.

Then there's this insight:


No Battle Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy


The idea that nothing Trump said pre-POTUS can be altered is not realistic. From a practical POV things change. Trump alters his plans and actions accordingly. That's how he won and that's how he has since not only survived but strengthened and expanded his base.  He didn't run to be a typical politician who reneges on promises as soon as he wins office. He won to MAGA and that is what guides his decisions.


Now if you want to lose all credibility, just go on fortune-telling the future with your wholly subjective crystal ball.  That loses with me two ways. First, countless NTs told me Trump's inner liberal would come out after he won. Fail!! Trump has been exactly what I voted for, so I am in no mood to listen to the doom and gloomers take a mulligan.

Second,  the wholly-detached-from-reality Qers relentlessly lecture the (haha) non-red pilled rubes re what is "about to happen." They've been doing this since at least December and they've been wrong 99.9% of the time.  So I have really had it with the, 'I'm smarter than you bc I know what's going to happen and you don't,' crew. They wore out their welcome in January.
 
Sincere question.  What have you predicted about Trump that turned out to be true? Can you provide documentation? Tia.

Well, I’ve had it with the “don’t pay any attention to what he says” crew, especially when they do things like pore over minutiae like the word “entire.”  Talk about credibility.  I’m satisfied the conversation between the two led to the appointment of Sessions, based on the trove of available decisions.  If I had never seen a traffic intersection before, it wouldn’t take me long to figure out what red and green lights meant.  I wouldn’t need The Hill or Politico to tell me.  Past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results, but it’s a pretty damn good indicator.

As far as predictions go, I could probably find a couple in 9K+ posts, but the search function here is hit or miss and I’m not going to weed through them all.  Here’s one from 2011 that should prove out in the near future......

Trump is NO conservative. He’s a self-dealing charlatan and he’s got a lot of fall-for-anything chump types fooled.

Any idea who said that?

[Fantasywriter]

Well, I’ve had it with the “don’t pay any attention to what he says” crew, especially when they do things like pore over minutiae like the word “entire.”  Talk about credibility.  I’m satisfied the conversation between the two led to the appointment of Sessions, based on the trove of available decisions.  If I had never seen a traffic intersection before, it wouldn’t take me long to figure out what red and green lights meant.  I wouldn’t need The Hill or Politico to tell me.  Past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results, but it’s a pretty damn good indicator.

When it comes to subjective questions people believe whatever they like. You like to believe that Giuliani's recommendation is the reason Trump chose Sessions.  You can give subjective reasons why you believe this, but you cannot provide anything that is objectively persuasive. 

I read several articles re Trump's choice of Sessions.  In making the announcement Trump omitted any and all references to Giuliani.  Here are Trump's words:


"Jeff has been a highly respected member of the U.S. Senate for 20 years. He is a world-class legal mind and considered a truly great Attorney General and US Attorney in the state of Alabama. Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him."

Sessions backed several of Trump's statements/policies during the campaign.  For example,  Sessions supported Trump on the so-called Muslim travel ban. I read somewhere that Trump considered Sessions loyal, and Trump's valuation of loyalty is well known.

Now you can say none of that is a primary consideration.  You can claim that the only reason of any real significance behind Trump's choice was Giuliani's recommendation.  The facts are not on your side, but people believe what they want to believe.

[edpc]

When it comes to subjective questions people believe whatever they like. You like to believe that Giuliani's recommendation is the reason Trump chose Sessions.  You can give subjective reasons why you believe this, but you cannot provide anything that is objectively persuasive. 

I read several articles re Trump's choice of Sessions.  In making the announcement Trump omitted any and all references to Giuliani.  Here are Trump's words:


"Jeff has been a highly respected member of the U.S. Senate for 20 years. He is a world-class legal mind and considered a truly great Attorney General and US Attorney in the state of Alabama. Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him."

Sessions backed several of Trump's statements/policies during the campaign.  For example,  Sessions supported Trump on the so-called Muslim travel ban. I read somewhere that Trump considered Sessions loyal, and Trump's valuation of loyalty is well known.

Now you can say none of that is a primary consideration.  You can claim that the only reason of any real significance behind Trump's choice was Giuliani's recommendation.  The facts are not on your side, but people believe what they want to believe.

Except we have a history where he has chosen people on recommendation, instead of this dreamworld deliberative process you can’t prove.  Remember the great team of foreign policy advisors he rolled out in the campaign?  Once they became liabilities, they were people he never met that barely worked for the campaign.  Do you believe he went through the same process selecting Rosenstein as DAG?  Of course not.  He was recommended.

If you want to get insight into his process, watch some of his depositions on YouTube.  They are incredibly dull, yet informative.  Under direct questioning and under oath, you’ll see how uninvolved he was in his day to day business operations.  He was basically rubber stamping the ideas and decisions of others.

[Fantasywriter]

Except we have a history where he has chosen people on recommendation, instead of this dreamworld deliberative process you can’t prove.  Remember the great team of foreign policy advisors he rolled out in the campaign?  Once they became liabilities, they were people he never met that barely worked for the campaign.  Do you believe he went through the same process selecting Rosenstein as DAG?  Of course not.  He was recommended.

If you want to get insight into his process, watch some of his depositions on YouTube.  They are incredibly dull, yet informative.  Under direct questioning and under oath, you’ll see how uninvolved he was in his day to day business operations.  He was basically rubber stamping the ideas and decisions of others.

Bol. The purpose of a deposition is not to reveal IQ. It is, to a large degree, to avoid conveying damaging info. I'm confident Trump did just fine.

Otoh, I have finally tumbled to the racket. You HAVE to maintain your narrative bc it's the only one that confirms the buffoonery status of the talking yam. Can't afford to give Drumpf too much credit, can you?

Just look at the picture your confirmation bias paints. You have this orange doofus walking around barely able to maintain one thought in his head: Giuliani for AG.

The Mango speaks to Giuliani.  Giuliani turns him down.

Now Adolf Trumpler has zero thoughts in his head. He's at a total loss. He had one, and only one, plan. It's gone and the wind is whistling through his vacant pate.

Giuliani comes to the rescue.  "I recommend Sessions."

A light dawns in the vacuous head of Agent Orange.  There's now a thought in his empty cranium. There isn't the capacity for more than one, so...Sessions it is!

Yes, finally it all makes sense.  Amazed it took me this long to dope it out [pardon the archaic language; I just finished reading one of the original hard boiled murder mysteries and I couldn't resist]. Begin with the premise that the Cheeto in Chief is an idiot and everything else falls right into place.

Smh.

 

[edpc]

Otoh, I have finally tumbled to the racket. You HAVE to maintain your narrative bc it's the only one that confirms the buffoonery status of the talking yam. Can't afford to give Drumpf too much credit, can you?

No, what I said is that he’s disengaged and susceptible to going along with whomever is in front of him at the moment.  That’s been apparent in the public discussions he’s had on immigration and gun control.  He goes off track with stuff like “due process later” and “bring me something I don’t love and I’ll sign it.”   It’s also why he needed a card with the reminder “I hear you” at the school shooting meeting.  Later on, his staff reigns him back in.  I really can’t help it if you refuse to see things as they are and this discussion has become tedious and off topic.  See you in the next thread.

[Fantasywriter]

No, what I said is that he’s disengaged and susceptible to going along with whomever is in front of him at the moment.  That’s been apparent in the public discussions he’s had on immigration and gun control.  He goes off track with stuff like “due process later” and “bring me something I don’t love and I’ll sign it.”   It’s also why he needed a card with the reminder “I hear you” at the school shooting meeting.  Later on, his staff reigns him back in.  I really can’t help it if you refuse to see things as they are and this discussion has become tedious.  See you in the next thread.

Orange man bad


https://esmemes.com/i/orange-man-bad-upvote-pls-submitted-2-hours-ago-by-22341582